Limitation Period Under Section 469 CrPC Runs From Date Of Police Officer's Knowledge Of Offence, Not FIR Registration: Delhi High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the limitation period for filing a chargesheet commences from the date a police officer first acquires knowledge of the alleged offence, and not from the date of formal FIR registration. Applying this position, the Court quashed a CBI chargesheet filed against a public servant accused of running a private business in violation of service rules, finding that the prosecution had knowledge of the alleged conduct as early as 1995 but filed the chargesheet only in 1998, rendering it barred by limitation.
The petitioner, a public servant, filed a criminal revision petition challenging an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate that allowed the CBI's application for condonation of delay in filing a chargesheet under Section 168 IPC. The allegation was that the petitioner, despite holding a government post, had been carrying on private business in the name of M/s Jitendra Builders.
During a search conducted on 24.11.1995 at the petitioner's residence, documents reflecting the alleged business were seized. Further documents were collected from the bank on 01.02.1996. A Preliminary Enquiry was registered on 23.12.1996, an FIR under Section 168 IPC on 13.06.1997, and permission to investigate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. was granted on 29.07.1997. The chargesheet was filed on 28.07.1998 accompanied by a condonation application, which the Magistrate allowed.
The petitioner contended that the CBI's knowledge of the offence dated back to 24.11.1995 or 01.02.1996, making the chargesheet barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The CBI contended the delay was caused by non-availability of documents and pendency of the Handwriting Expert's Report, and further sought addition of Section 419 IPC.
The Court examined the provisions of Sections 468 and 469 Cr.P.C. governing the period of limitation and its commencement. On the statutory position, the Court stated that "it is, therefore, evident that the period of limitation is to commence from the date of knowledge of the police officer."
On the date of knowledge, the Court recorded that "the first glaring fact which emerges is that the raid was conducted on 24.11.1995 and the documents were seized reflecting that the Petitioner was running a sole proprietorship business, in the name and style of M/s Jitendra Builders. The date of knowledge of the alleged offence thus, date back to 24.11.1995 or at best, 01.02.1996, when the documents were collected from the Bank."
On the CBI's reliance on the Preliminary Enquiry to defer the commencement of limitation, the Court stated that "the claim of the CBI that subsequently the Preliminary Enquiry was conducted in which statements of the witnesses were recorded and the offence was prima facie made out, is not tenable as the documents disclosing the alleged commission of offence relate back to 24.11.1995. The commencement of the period of limitation, therefore, commences from 24.11.1995 or 01.02.1996, and not from the date of registration of the present RC on 24.11.1997."
On the Expert Report as justification for delay, the Court recorded that "the Expert's Report was only a corroborative piece of evidence, which could have very well been filed along with the Supplementary Chargesheet. Prima facie, the offence of doing a business was disclosed from the seizure of the documents itself. Therefore, to claim that the delay was on account of the time taken by FSL in giving this Report, is not tenable."
On the subsequent inclusion of Section 419 IPC, the Court stated that "the Prosecution-CBI subsequently in order to overcome the limitation, had moved an Application on 11.11.2003 for including the offence under Section 419 IPC" and further recorded that "simplicitor introduction of a person for opening of an Account, cannot even prima facie make out a case under S.419 IPC."
The Court concluded that "there are no cogent explanations given on behalf of the CBI for condonation of delay of more than 02 years. The Order dated 12.04.2004 of Ld. MM allowing the Condonation Application is therefore, set aside. Consequently, the Chargesheet is also quashed, as being barred by time. The Petition is, hereby allowed. Pending Applications are disposed of, accordingly."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mrs. Anita Sahani, Advocate with Dr. Shiv Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. Anubha Bhardwaj, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, along with Ms. Anchal Kashyap, Advocate and Ms. Ananya Shamshery, Advocate
Case Title: Bachu Singh Versus C.B.I.
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1635
Case Number: CRL.REV.P.320/2004
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
